joanna wrote:
>
> Well, yes. But that entaglement is not a mutually supportive one.
>
> Lots of companies are hurting because of health insurance costs and
> these costs will rise as the population ages and collectively pays the
> price for the "lifestyle" foisted on them.
>
> You can have capitalism without privatizing health insurance.
And I agree with this (as well as with the parts of your post I've clipped), and _prior_ to the growth in the last few decades of health insurance, the political battle _might_ have been easily winnable, had there been a string left to fight it.
(Now, we don't have a detailed account of the personnel,of themcapitalist class and their actual overlaps to support what follows, so it's hypothetical. Doug might be able to untangle some of it.)
If you look behind the "companies that are hurting" that you refer to above you may find, I suspect you _would_ find, that the collections of flesh-and-blood individual capitalists (including rentiers and the institutions that handle the money of those rentiers) who control those companies are ALSO the capitalists whow predominate in the insurance companies -- and what they lose if GM goes bust is less than what they would lose if the health insurance business were dissolved.
Is there a way that the Insurance interests could be bought off? If there is, then a huge & angry enogh mass movement might make it worthwhile to do so for the sake of 'quiet." But where is that mass movement to come from?
Carrol